Everyone's talking about white-tailed eagles, it seems.  Even my taxi driver this morning in London had a view - amazingly he lives in Suffolk!  And for what it's worth, he was very much in favour of the reintroduction scheme.

There are some great comments on my earlier blogs on this subject including one posted yesterday by Derek Moore which it is well worth reading for its forthright nature.

Tom Tew, the Natural England Chief Scientist, was on the radio earlier this week dispelling some myths and spreading some common sense and you can listen to it for the next few days by following this link

On the more sceptical end of things, following Libby Purves's not very accurate article in the Times there have been two letters published on the subject in this same newspaper, one by Songbird Survival  and the other by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.  Neither is very positive about the reintroduction which appears to be The Times's own line since it hasn't seen fit to publish any contrary views although we know they have received some.

The Daily Telegraph published one article on the subject which took the Robin Page line - funny that, he writes for the Telegraph! - including the view that there is scant evidence that white-tailed eagles used to live in East Anglia.  Well we know that is a myth. 

What is lacking is any evidence to back up the claims of Robin Page and others that white-tailed eagles will do harm to livestock or wildlife.  The comments posted here on my blog (some from true experts in the field) , and all the discussions I have seen, suggest that the landowners of Suffolk have nothing to fear from eagles and that the wider public have much to look forward to in respect of a beautiful bird and the economic benefit that it will bring with it in terms of tourism revenue. 

On Mull, an RSPB economic study indicated that the white-tailed eagles brought in annually about £1.5m to the local economy - we would now think that figure is closer to £2m per annum.

If there is hard evidence from where white-tailed eagles currently live that they might do harm in Suffolk then let us please see that evidence now.  That's one of the things that a consultation period is for.  The RSPB is keen to see any evidence on this subject, but uninformed hysterical opposition to what is, let's face it, just a big bird, in the early days of the 21st century seems very sadly misplaced.

Parents
  • Derek Moore the reason the take up on the schemes may be low is obviously because for the monetary rewards whatever some people think are so low,by that I mean that the paperwork is so demanding that mostly a professional has to be employed and makes the scheme just not worth doing which is why only the enthusiasts go on them.

    An example of how stupid these schemes can be is that we scraped into entry level by a very narrow margin and in a field we had a pond which they would not allow us one point for but the barbed wire fence round it we could claim points for.I complained at meetings held by DEFRA about this but of course they would not give a inch.

    Surely everyone knows ponds are a good conservation project and barbed wire must be one of the worst while we have people like this trying to control farmers is it any wonder numbers of them avoid the scheme and to cap it all the politicians can't often pay out in time and money which the british farmer was due to from these schemes goes into Europe and DEFRA fined for being so slow.British taxpayers money of course.

    Afraid those on the outside have not got a clue how difficult for farmers these schemes are.Now we have a RSPB spokesman having a go at farmers so have asked Mark to invite him to explain his criticism that farmers don't do much for their £2.5 billion from these schemes.My guess is it is another wrong fact but lets see if he comes and takes up the invite and comments.

    Even if there is substance in what he says I can guarantee some farmers will be annoyed and say blow the schemes or worse.Sad to say a really silly own goal and unless the person is right needs to be demoted to making the tea.(better not put what I really think as pushing my luck that Mark publishes this)

    If you do Mark can only say many many thanks.

Comment
  • Derek Moore the reason the take up on the schemes may be low is obviously because for the monetary rewards whatever some people think are so low,by that I mean that the paperwork is so demanding that mostly a professional has to be employed and makes the scheme just not worth doing which is why only the enthusiasts go on them.

    An example of how stupid these schemes can be is that we scraped into entry level by a very narrow margin and in a field we had a pond which they would not allow us one point for but the barbed wire fence round it we could claim points for.I complained at meetings held by DEFRA about this but of course they would not give a inch.

    Surely everyone knows ponds are a good conservation project and barbed wire must be one of the worst while we have people like this trying to control farmers is it any wonder numbers of them avoid the scheme and to cap it all the politicians can't often pay out in time and money which the british farmer was due to from these schemes goes into Europe and DEFRA fined for being so slow.British taxpayers money of course.

    Afraid those on the outside have not got a clue how difficult for farmers these schemes are.Now we have a RSPB spokesman having a go at farmers so have asked Mark to invite him to explain his criticism that farmers don't do much for their £2.5 billion from these schemes.My guess is it is another wrong fact but lets see if he comes and takes up the invite and comments.

    Even if there is substance in what he says I can guarantee some farmers will be annoyed and say blow the schemes or worse.Sad to say a really silly own goal and unless the person is right needs to be demoted to making the tea.(better not put what I really think as pushing my luck that Mark publishes this)

    If you do Mark can only say many many thanks.

Children
No Data